VISHWA NATH TEWARI Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the judgment and order dated 29.11.1979, contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition.

(2.) THIS petition Vishwa Nath Tewari has been, the tenant of a portion of first flour of a house, detailed in the petition and situated in mohalla Railway Ganj, Hardoi. The Opposite Party No. 2 Jai Karan Nath Gupta is the nephew of the Opposite Party No. 3 Seth Chunni Lal. The disputed portion of the house was let out to Vishwa Nath Tewari in the year 1968 by Seth Chunni Lal.

(3.) THE aforesaid SCC suit was dismissed on 12.12.1974, vide judgment contained in Annexure-2. It was held in this judgment that Jai Karan Nath Gupta was the landlord of Vishwa Nath Tewari who had not committed any default in payment of rent. The Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 filed a revision which was partly allowed and the suit for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month along with the electricity and water charges at the rate of Rs. 13/- per month plus additional charges at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month for certain period was decreed in favour of the Opposite Party No. 3 on ground that the landlord was entitled to a decree for arrears of rent etc. In the body of the judgment while deciding point Nos. 5 to 6 in this revision it was held that the Opposite Party No. 2 Jai Karan Nath Gupta was not landlord and the notice given by him was not valid and that the suit for ejectment was rightly dismissed. Jai Karan Nath Gupta filed a Civil Revision No. 81 of 1976 in the High Court which was decided on 21.2.1979 with the observations that the findings on the rate of rent and validity of the notice were challenged while the findings of the first Revisional Court about the relationship of landlord and tenant between Vishwa Nath Tawari and Jai Karan Nath Gupta had become final. Thus it was finally held on 21.2.1979 by this Court that the landlord of Vishwa Nath Tewari was Jai Karan Nath Gupta and not Seth Chunni Lal. The second revision does not lie and has no force because that law was applicable on the revisions pending before 1.8.1978.